> > My opinion on this tends to be that, in the HAVING case, we are the only
> > one that doesn't support it w/o aggregates, so we altho we do follow the
> > spec, we are making it slightly more difficult to migrate from 'the
> > others' to us...
>
> We follow the spec in what we support, but the spec *does* allow
> HAVING w/o aggregates (and w/o any GROUP BY clause).
>
> Tom, imho we absolutely should *not* emit warnings for unusual but
> legal constructs. Our chapter on "syntax" can start addressing these
> kinds of topics, but the backend probably isn't the place to teach SQL
> style...
>
OK. Agreed.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
